There are some conclusions that can be drawn about the types of criminal defense systems used since the Supreme Court's Gideon decision. First, the ad hoc appointment of counsel method, whereby the judge appoints a private attorney in accordance with that judge's own concept of quality, fairness, and competence, has not worked. This is the judgment not only of those organizations which have studied the matter but also of many jurisdictions which have made independent studies. Secondly, the lack of adequate funding to the counties and the desire to protect one's territory from outside intrusion have become primary issues in the development of adequate defender systems nationally. Thirdly, rural areas have only in the last 5-7 years begun to look beyond the ad hoc appointment system to alternative methods of providing counsel. Recent years have seen a gradual shift to coordinated systems that use both public defenders and private bar. Coordinated assigned counsel systems, mixed coordinated and public defender systems, and properly designed and operated State systems should eliminate most of the serious problems in providing legal services in rural areas. Twenty-four notes are listed. (Author summary modified)